I agree with the principles you are posting on Dalrock, but Christianity Today has had a leftward tilt at least since I was in college in the 1980s. I am not sure it is accurate to even call it Christian, in spite of its name.

This is a fair question, but the issue isn’t just about which Christian media outlets are busy lynching Pastor Abedini in response to absurd accusations that he is abusing his wife in the US from an Iranian prison. This isn’t just about what Christianity Today, Christian Today, Religion News Service, Charisma News, Shattered Magazine, and others are writing about the persecuted Pastor. This is also about the silence from other Christian media organizations and Christian leaders while Pastor Abedini is being lynched in Christian media.

Outside of this small corner of the blogosphere, who will call out the injustice? Who will point out the absurdity of defining looking at pornography not just as sexual sin, but as domestic violence, as sexual abuse? Who will point out the absurdity of accusing a husband of abusing his wife from inside an Iranian prison seven thousand miles away? Who will point out the obvious violation of 1 Tim 5:19?

The problem isn’t that the Christian Red Guards are running amok, the problem is that everyone else is too terrified to stand up to them. The most likely Christian leaders to fight against this insanity are the complementarians, but they are terrified of being accused of supporting the abuse of women.

This is their greatest fear.

To understand the mortal terror complementarians have of being accused of supporting the abuse of women, you have to understand their frame of mind. They believe that the existence of feminism is proof of grievous abuses by Christian men. They believe that if men are godly enough, women will happily submit to their husbands and thrive. Under this view Adam’s sin wasn’t just that he followed Eve’s lead in the Garden, but that he allowed her to sin (or created the conditions required for her to sin) in the first place.

You can see this in the founding statement of the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. The CBMW is by far the most predominant complementarian group, and their 1988 Danvers Statement declares that they are formed (among other things) as a response to:

6. the upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family;

From the beginning they haven’t been able to see that feminists were generating hysteria around domestic violence and using this hysteria as a tool to attack headship. They believe, and they have believed from their inception, that the feminist claims of rampant wife abuse was an honest response to a sudden and mysterious surge in domestic violence.

It is often asserted that patriarchy, broadly defined as the legitimation of male authority over females, is the basis for most, if not all social pathologies. For instance, Russ Funk states

Tracy then quotes Funk’s feminist rant on the patriarchy:

Patriarchy is a terrible, violent, vile system that destroys huge pieces of all of us-our individual humanness and humanness in general. Patriarchy creates men who choose to act oppressively and violently, who create huge systems of destruction… . Patriarchy is a death system. It is a system based on destruction, violence, and degradation.3

Tracy quotes this to remind his readers that biblical patriarchy is a frightening thing. Tracy disagrees with Funk’s indictment of the patriarchy, but only slightly. His main concern is that we not dismiss what radical feminists like Funk have to say about patriarchy (emphasis mine):

It might be tempting to casually dismiss such criticisms, especially given the theological and ethical views of many radical feminists who deny for example, the substitutionary atonement (calling it “divine child abuse”),4 reject historic Christian orthodoxy in favor of neo-paganism and goddess worship, and stridently promote lesbianism and abortion.5 At the same time, we must never soften our commitment to the truth, wherever it may lead us. If feminists have identified legitimate concerns, they must be fiercely addressed. Sadly, while biblical complementarians oppose the abuse of male leadership, they have been extremely slow to address specific issues of male abuse in a detailed fashion.6

Tracy continues:

While patriarchy is not the cause of all the world’s social ills, a corruption of patriarchy very often is a major cause of many ills. Given the nature of human depravity with its tendency to corrupt divine gifts, it should not surprise us to find that male headship is often twisted to generate horrible evil. Donald Bloesch astutely observes: “In opposing militant feminism, however, we must not make the mistake of enthroning patriarchal values that have often held women and children in bondage and oppression.”7Similarly, in the context of noting the harmful results of egalitarianism, which he says are anarchy or matriarchy, he issues a sober warning: “a very real danger in the patriarchal family is tyranny in which the husband uses his power to hold his wife and children in servile dependence and submission.”8

Widespread abuse of male power is anticipated and condemned in Scripture.

If the term “servile dependence and submission” rings a bell, it is because this is a nod to another point in the CBMW’s founding document. In the Danvers Statement, the CBMW invented a new sin for wives, the feminist sin of servility:

4. The Fall introduced distortions into the relationships between men and women(Genesis 3:1-7, 12, 16).– In the home, the husband’s loving, humble headship tends to be replaced by domination or passivity; the wife’s intelligent, willing submission tends to be replaced by usurpation or servility.

Keep in mind that the CBMW is the vanguard of the modern Christian fight against feminism, and they are at best ambivalent towards the idea of biblical gender roles. When feminists started expanding the definition of abuse to include any husband a wife wanted to gain power over, they responded by asserting that feminists were right in their hysteria. Turning this back now will be even harder than it would have been decades ago, and on top of that this case involves allegations of a man viewing pornography.

If we do see a complementarian speaking out against the Christian media lynching Pastor Abedini, this will no doubt create a fracture in the complementarian movement. Speaking out on this topic involves the risk of being seen as supporting the abuse of wives and supporting the use of pornography; for any lone leader who tries to take a stand, even a wishy washy stand, others will be eager to renounce them in order distance themselves from these terrifying charges as much as possible.

94 Responses to Terror

I don’t see this getting rolled back Dalrock. I think the effort from those that oppose this is to form their own institutions. An example is the concept of MGTOW vs. MRA’s The red pill men are much more “Christian” than any of these. Spend time at Chateau Heartiste and once past the connotation of game and banging chicks that crowd is more truthful and realistic than any of the churchian groups that have bastardized Christianity in the name of female worship. A PUA is more likely to follow scripture than a practicing churchian and that includes preachers and elder types. After all of these years Roosh is doing articles on love and marriage with a basis in reality a subject no church will touch.
Well Dalrock another great article on the merits of MGTOW. Stay faithful Dalrock

Dalrock, if you can, please email me. You don’t have a way to contact you on this site and there’s something I’d like to discuss re: this post and the problem you describe.

I just finished reading the CBMW book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” I was triggered by a lot of passages, let’s just say. But while I agree that they have serious problems, and their top people certainly go out of their way to avoid addressing this issue, they have done some truly Herculean work in textual analysis and biblical exegesis defending the complementarian view. I think it’s fair to say that without them, egalitarianism would have already won the day completely. They deserve our thanks for that task, something we could not have accomplished, even if they are far from perfect people.

None of this is to justify their present day positions. I agree they are terrified of women. But they have done critical scholarship in defense of complementarianism and blowing away things like the “head = source” nonsense.

“Patriarchy is a terrible, violent, vile system that destroys huge pieces of all of us-our individual humanness and humanness in general. Patriarchy creates men who choose to act oppressively and violently, who create huge systems of destruction… . Patriarchy is a death system. It is a system based on destruction, violence, and degradation”

Thanks for once again lighting up the internal inconsistences in the CBMW. Years ago when I read some of their materials my BS detector pinged, I had an intuitive, subconscious “ugh” reaction but I could not articulate why. It just seemed to me that “complimentarian” was another variation on the endless Madonna / whore, neovictorian pedestalization that is a key part of traditional conservatism.

Now I see why my subconscious wrote a note to my conscious: CBMW bought into fundamental premises of feminism from the start. Therefore CBMW is really another variation conservative feminism. Men must “lead” by following women. Men must be “heads” with zero real authority. Men must boldly speak the truth by continually walking on eggshells.

The CBMW is just another group of chauffers and their passengers who like to pretend that he is really driving the car where he thinks it is best to go.

And yes, “complimentarians” of all stripes seem to live in utter horror of ever being accused of screwing up feminism. Complimentarians are the Real Men and Real Women who will actually make feminism work, by golly, and they will do so by changing labels and rearranging deck chairs.

If we do see a complementarian speaking out against the Christian media lynching Pastor Abedini, this will no doubt create a fracture in the complementarian movement. Speaking out on this topic involves the risk of being seen as supporting the abuse of wives and supporting the use of pornography; for any lone leader who tries to take a stand, even a wishy washy stand, others will be eager to renounce them in order distance themselves from these terrifying charges as much as possible.

This bears repeating. It isn’t just that complimentarians are afraid of women, although many of them obviously are. It’s that complimentarian men tend to be betas who crave the approval of women, who are deathly afraid of being accused by a woman of pretty much anything. Thus complimentarian men so far as I can tell tend to be as heavliy self-policing as feminist men – and just as vicious towards any man whom they perceive as “not nice enough to the women”. That is because the complimentarians are moderates, they are trying to split the difference between matriarchy and patriarchy. As such they are doomed to fail, because anything that isn’t explicit patriarchy will default to matriarchy because of the sea of feminism we all swim in.

Furthermore, there is a clear crab-bucket aspect to the complimentarians. I agree that it is not likely any will stand up against the high tech lynching of Abedini, and doubly agree that any one who does will wind up apologizing, scraping and engaging in the ritual Maoistic self-abnegation session.

You’ve got to love the name “The Danvers Statement”. Mrs Danvers is the name of the psychotic housekeeper in Daphne du Maurier’s novel Rebecca.

I agree with Greyghost that this is never going to end. After all, it isn’t going to make the problem of genuine cases of domestic abuse go away. Therefore the sisters will not give up, in fact they will double their efforts.

Ridicule however is a potent weapon. I suggest creating an annual Haven Monahan Prize for the least convincing claims of imaginary abuse. The idea that a man can commit domestic violence against his wife while incarcerated 7,000 miles away would be a worthy winner; but there have been so many other contenders this year that it would be hard for the judges to make a decision.

Feminism is very flexible. Andrew Weiner, the former Congressman and husband of Huma Abedin Weiner, personal assistant to Hillary Clinton for many years now is such a case of feminist flexibility as to defy belief. Weiner, a Democrat Jew from NYC is of course, the nitwit that wrecked his career and humiliated his wife quite publicly by showing his prick on-web to various and sundry web-sluts. Stripped of his positions in the House, he resigned. The damage to his wife was public, her humiliation complete. Fast forward a year, she’s pregnant, his reputation “reconstituted”, he tries a run for Mayor of NYC with full support of Democrats and “oooopsie”, he got caught showing hsi junk again, and again, humiliating his wife in public while she’s carrying the pervert’s child.

How was Democrat Weiner not guilty of “abuse”? Surely perverted dissemination of your penis in public and being caught repeatedly in violation of your marriage vows constitutes abuse if it results in the repeated public humiliation of your wife, does it not? Feminism doesn’t forget the train it rode in on. And feminism has conveniently side-stepped the issue with Weiner while ably assisting the abuse charges trumped up by the wife-disclosed pornography-based “abuse” supposedly suffered by the wife at the hand of the Pastor before and during his imprisonment in Iran. Given the flexibility of the situation between Weinder vs the situation of the Pastor imprisoned in Iran, I’d say all their credibility on the matter is toast, if the juxtaposition of the two situations could be pointed out in public. Weiner’s situation was public and obvious, not a whisper of abuse accusation. The pastor in Iran is she-said/he denied, yet Weinder goes free in the public square of “abuse” accusations. How is this?

The stage seems about right for a sudden shift in Church politics, as an increasing number of men suddenly begin to withdraw their memberships (and money) form the current fem-positive model – noting that, despite the increasing shrillness of fem demands, the bulk of a church’s assets are given by and managed by men.
More frightening is the potential for a significant number of men to abruptly shift to a new, non-Christian religious orientation, one that meets their needs … leaving the fem-dominated Christian Churches scrambling for funding and relevance – what this new orientation might be I have no idea.

@Keith Young
The one true faith still remains the one true faith in spite of its current distortions or those falsely masquerading as such. Jesus remains risen from the dead and he still remains enthroned in heaven.

Our Lord and King is Faithful and the gates of death will not prevail against his church. Have faith brother that he has overcome the world.

This is Feminism knocking on the door of the UMC. Everything lower than this has already been decimated. Usually, the wealth and prosperity of an UMC lifestyle is enough to satisfy. Women make the determination that they cannot do any better….so there is ‘peace’ via contentment that these middle-aged, fat hags can’t do any better. Seriously, I look at the wives of the executives of my company…I wouldn’t hit that if you paid me.

“While patriarchy is not the cause of all the world’s social ills, a corruption of patriarchy very often is a major cause of many ills.”

What?? There is nothing else…there has never been anything else. Men build everything. Men fix everything. Women….are children…that need to be told ‘no’. They need this so bad they are practically begging for it. But Western Men have retreated and capitulated for decades. I don’t know the way out. Perhaps one could try ‘game’, but you have no legal backing. Obviously scripture isn’t working.

The UMC men are the the core of the blue pillers. These are the alphas and lesser-alphas that have done well for themselves. They have everything necessary to keep the wife happy. They work…all the time. They are marred as much to the job as they are to their frumpy wives. Pulling the plows good enough that they haven’t been threatened with divorce rape. But it’s not a plow, it’s a treadmill, and Feminism is turning the speed knob up. How fast can you run monkey?

First off, this will end. How and when it will end I don’t know, but it certainly will. Sin kills. It is “deceitful” according to Hebrews and lures us to destruction. This requires no special judgment from God. He mandates some behaviors and forbids others not out of some arbitrary whim but because they really are good and bad, not just in terms of their moral significance, but in terms of their consequences.

The Bible uses the concept of the “way” or path. There are two ways, one to life, one to death. Right now our society is walking the path to death. And if it does not repent it will eventually get there, just like previous societies before that.

Secondly, we will have to see how things play out in the next few years. There are a lot of ways this could go. I do think it’s naive to think men will go on strike and that will force the church to change. It’s famously assumed, and I have no reason to doubt it, that the women actually determine where the family attends church and where the tithes ultimately go. I personally know one church that collapsed when the wife in the family that I believe financed most of it decided she wanted out, and the family went elsewhere. To have men take charge of the family’s church attendance and giving would require that the problem already be solved. Most Christian guys I know are blue pill to the the max and beyond that not very tough guys. Podles got it right in my view when he cited studies showing religious interest is negatively correlated with masculinity. When I was not a Christian, at work we used to laugh at the one guy who openly was because he was just a walking parody of a Christian nice guy. “Very soft and gentle” as Trump might put it.

As for Dal’s post … good stuff and spot on. But really can be summarized as: true Christianity no longer exists … primarily because church leadership is composed of cowards who refused to take on Feminism and teach true biblical principals … because doing so would spit in the face of Feminists. As for the observation that it has just been getting worse and worse over time. Well, duh. As more and more men have left the church … it becomes harder and harder to confront the Feminists who remain. At some point, it will become impossible … because those are the ONLY people who remain. Not there yet but getting close.

Something else is that the complementarian type conservative Evangelicals are actually going the other direction. You probably noticed a slew of very strident, almost militant posts about admitting more Syrian refugees coming out of them. I call it the “please don’t kick me” strategy. These guys are so desperate to maintain mainstream credibility that they are going out of their way to trumpet as loudly to the world how much they love refugees, poverty relief, hate racism, hate “abuse”, hate sex trafficking (a trendy cause in the church right now, thus distinguishing Christians from all those organizations that support sex trafficking….) – all the things that modern secular leftist ideology endorses. This isn’t the Sojourners crowd. These are people you’d identify as top level conservative Christians.

In my view this is an attempt to inoculate themselves against charges of being hateful, not inclusive, etc. and to differentiate them as much as possible from the Kim Davises of this world. Just as importantly, look at what they don’t talk about: homosexuality, transgender rights, feminism, etc.

I think the Evangelical world is starting to flip from conservative to liberal politically, driven by the urban church people, Millennials, and the influence of the current crop of neo-anabaptists. This church is all indicative, no imperative. It’s about the good news of Christ dying for you, but very little about how we should live in response to that apart from “love your neighbor.”

In short, things are actually getting worse fast, and not just on the feminism front.

On the other hand, we should not be overly pessimistic. We have to leave room for God to show up. We can’t all be focused on purely worldly trend lines. We’ve got to remember who is actually in control. I would remind you of Jonathan deciding to take on the Philistine army by himself:

Then Jonathan said to the young man who was carrying his armor, “Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the Lord will work for us, for the Lord is not restrained to save by many or by few.” – 1 Samuel 14: 6

For the Christian, there is always hope. God doesn’t ask us to deny reality. But he also demands that we remember who is actually in charge of that reality.

Persecution, which I would define as having to pay a material price, even just a social one, for being Christian, would be a good things for the church. Persecution requires the masculine virtues. The church will cultivate them or decline. If a huge number of people ended up leaving, that might not be a bad thing.You may recall that Jesus didn’t spend a lot of time trying to convince people to follow him. Quite the opposite in fact. He kept doing crazy things to drive people away.

I can’t see a feminized church standing up to serious pain. I even have trouble seeing myself doing it, to be honest, which is why I’m doing everything in my power to grow in masculine strength to get ready for it if it comes. Our first mission shouldn’t be kvetching here, as therapeutic as that can be. It should be getting ready to be put in the real game.

One of the things I HATE about debating modern issues is the perpetual moving of the goalposts. From a legal sense we have detailed statistics on physical abuse. It’s a crime and reports of said crime can be tabulated year by year decade by decade. I don’t know the figures but it’s a good bet there is no “upsurge” of physical abuse in the family today in western cultures.

If you think about it with divorce being so rampant… men and women are not together enough for there to BE physical abuse.

But introduce the innocuous “related condition” that so happens to be a lot less testable. And voila you have a BIG increase of this supposed issue and as a bonus the man does not need to be in the home to do this supposed “emotional abuse”. Cute trick right?

We see this in the ridiculous rape / “sexual assault” assertion that one in 4 girls will be victims in college. But you delve into the methodology and boom a groping is considered “sexual assault”. Legally sexual assault is NOT groping but no matter this 1 in 4 headline is all they need to declare a rape culture.

The leftists have won the word game and the framing of debates. We can no longer call black and white issues. They redefine casual sights as “micro aggression”. They redefine debate as intolerance.
It is useless to debate these fools.

How did the patriarchy fall??? Were there any real studies to determine how much abuse was going on by the patriarchy or was the feminist hype and accusations just believed because “Everyone knows men are abusers”. Any studies on the number of women abusers?????
Just wondering if it was all hype or was there data to back up any of this?

By chance I have been watching a thirty-minute discussion between three women working for or involved with Planned Parenthood. The Interviewer whose legs were crossed was wearing a short-skirt in a my-legs-are-better-than-either-of-yours display. From what they said, however, this is what I learned:

Women still have vast amounts of patriarchal oppression to overcome
Women need pay equality with men
Teenagers need healthy ‘relationships’
Teenagers need to decide whether they are ready for sexual relationships
The teenage children of these very women will not listen to their Mothers
If teenagers wont come to PP, PP will go out and find teenagers
Most clients of PP are in their twenties
Teenage pregnancy is down
Abortion should be a Health and not a Criminal matter
Men go to PP too – for STD treatment

I know one of these three women and she told me that in providing sex-education classes to young black women her display of oral skills involving condoms was such that the black women assumed that she was formerly a Prostitute. PP creates the very problems it seek to cure.

When encountering feminism Christians attempt to distinguish mainstream (“good”) feminism as espoused by say, sex-positive writers like Naomi Wolf, from radical/ extreme (“bad”) feminism such as that articulated by Andrea Dworkin, Mary Daly and Valerie Solana and her follower, Jilly Cooper.
The problem with this approach is that feminists themselves make no such distinction. Susan Faludi, in her book “Backlash”, is adamant that the extreme end of feminism acts as an engine for the movement to ensure that it keeps feminist progress going. So, to dissociate the lunatic fringe of feminism is to derail it completely.

The answer to this is for Christian leaders to read, understand and counter feminism by exposure. This is Biblical (Luke 12:3, Matt10:27). Why do they not demand to see proof of the alleged graphic harm “patriarchy” has done? If it is as bad as Russ Funk says, surely history will be full of examples of human suffering that can be traced right back to patriarchy. Instead, there are none. Expose it to scrutiny and the monster vanishes.

Christian leaders, and indeed Christian men in general, need to understand a basic fundamental: They need to grow a pair and fight the good fight as they are commanded to in Scripture, a command we are to obey to the death if necessary (Rev 2:10).
Then, they might stand for something and solve the lack of sex they’re getting in the process. As one of my female co-workers told me after a particularly robust encounter I had with management:

Christian leaders, and indeed Christian men in general, need to understand a basic fundamental: They need to grow a pair and fight the good fight as they are commanded to in Scripture, a command we are to obey to the death if necessary (Rev 2:10).

Indeed. Churchianity, in short, is the substitution of the fear of God with the fear of man (worship of the State, very popular among Amerikan churchians in particular, is one manifestation of this fear). It never seems to dawn on these people that God quite logically isn’t about to work any miracles on behalf of people who demonstrate no faith in Him and who put Him lower on the hierarchal scale than they do devil-serving humans. The cognitave and logical disconnect, as well as the bewilderment as to why God “seems so absent” is truly a wonderous thing to behold.

2 Peter 2:10 reads “Yes, Lot was a righteous man who was tormented in his soul by the wickedness he saw and heard day after day” (NLT). How much more the American Church, surrounded on all sides by hedonism and persecuted from within by heretics and blasphemers? The terror, as we call it, is an aftereffect of this damage in the spiritual warfare we have had to wage. Liberal theology was our opponent during the first half of the twentieth century as it traveled outside of Germany; we forgot that there were two fronts, and feminism carried the flag for the noxious corruption sneaking in. I fear too, for when I am ordained, how many will threaten me into silence – and when I refuse them, try to have me jailed with false accusations of rape or “hate speech?”

I WILL, however, speak the truth to all whom God entrusts me to care for and teach. I just believe that Jeremiah, the weeping prophet, and Elijah, the epitome of one under trial, are the most relatable of men for ministers today, seeing the open hypergamy and celebrated dissipation of the age.

@bkilbor, let us not forget that God rebuked Elijiah for believing he was the only faithful person left. God had actually preserved 7,000 men in Israel who had not bowed their knee to Baal. There are more faithful people out there than perhaps we realize.

Unfortunately, 7,000 sounds just about right. What if it is 7 times 7 or 100 times 7 or even 1,000 times 7,000? It is still not enough without an army of angels at our back. We are not going to be wearing white for this battle.

That is good for business. Never really ever want to fix the problem. Why do you think abuse is being defined down. To many men not kicking enough asses. And feminism requires victims and they will have their victims. Even a man in prison for speaking about Christianity can abuse his wife sexually 7k miles away from his prison cell.

Jesus won’t protect you from frivorce…..or anything else. Regardless of if you follow Christ-like behavior. Dalrock has said it before….the ‘tingle’ is the mark of virtue….according to the modern female. The ‘tingle’? What about ‘love’? What about ‘commitment’? What about promises? If you don’t measure up to the ‘tingle’, you will be destroyed, your children’s lives will be destroyed. Rage. My mind boils with rage. Where is the justice…the fairness…the equality??? You are the only one who can protect YOU. So protect yourself. Do not get married. Do not cohabitate.

Christ is sufficient in all endeavours (Phillipians 4:13), and it is blasphemous to suggest otherwise. It is important not to put your faith in the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. However, Christ has set up marriage as the only moral bounds for romantic love, commitment, sex, and children. The best protection you have against frivorce, then, is to find a woman who is more committed to Christ than she is to you. Better protection than that is to be more committed to Christ than the Blue Pill ideal of marriage that will last forever-and-a-day. The only marriage that will last forever is the one between Christ and His church.

Paniym @ 12:31 am:
“How did the patriarchy fall??? Were there any real studies to determine how much abuse was going on by the patriarchy or was the feminist hype and accusations just believed because “Everyone knows men are abusers”.”

Eh, it was an act of God. Too much happened too quickly and too uniformly to be the result of mortal effort. On the one hand it’s comforting that God is still running things, on the other hand it’s creepy that testing us in various trials is important enough that sabotaging all civilization isn’t too high a price to pay.

But then, neither was the death of God Himself.

…

c0l0nelp0pc0rn @ 9:36 pm:
“The best protection you have against frivorce, then, is to find a woman who is more committed to Christ than she is to you.”

Classic Churchianity. The wife’s loyalty to her husband is limited; she need not submit to him if she believes “Christ” would not approve of what he commands. Never mind that for women, obeying her husband IS obeying Christ even if husband is not a believer.

By the same logic, we Christians should disobey Jesus whenever we are wise enough to know we don’t have to obey his teachings. And yes, I’ve heard this taught in church.

“The only marriage that will last forever is the one between Christ and His church.”

A dangerous partial truth that has led to massive damage to this creation. The thing is, this notion can only apply in a constructive way when the “other” is deeply and truly like “you.” Because when that is not the case, misery and pain is assured.
Would you treat a child the same way you would like to be treated? No, you would end up with a very spoiled child.
Treat a woman like you would like to be treated? No, her hind-brain will hate you with furious intensity. Her fore-brain will think of reason after reason why you are anti-christian and she needs to get out as soon as possible with your kids and your money – because Jesus is telling her heart that.
Because men and women are radically different in regards to sex triggers.

Vektor
Some of these Christian cats are so damn righteous they forget they are men living in the real world. The sinners are the only ones with dirty souls that can actually fight evil. When the fighting is done the righteous ones will be free to teach scripture without “terror” because the bad sinners that don’t know Christ will fix it for them and make it safe. And the pussies will tingle with delight and submission. and all without getting any blood on their righteous souls. and God shall be pleased, Amen.

I have just seen this story too.
What a silly girl.
So many nice young ladies praying for a gem of a man like Tim Tebow.
She gets such a wonderful man like this, and she rejects him??
Quoi?

This was such a precious gift she got. She will never get a better man.
Of that I am sure.

As for Tim, I hope he has realised that he dodged a major bullet.
I have every faith that he will get the woman he deserves. One who like him is waiting in faith, with God’s help.
He will find her, soon.

Tebow knew better than to pursue a woman with questionable faith and wind up unequally yoked. As others have said, it’s probably for the best.

Neguy, I hope and pray for the best. God said that He’d spare Sodom and Gomorrah if there was even one saint amongst them. We still do a lot of good work in terms of spreading the Gospel around the world.

To understand the mortal terror complementarians have of being accused of supporting the abuse of women, you have to understand their frame of mind. They believe that the existence of feminism is proof of grievous abuses by Christian men. They believe that if men are godly enough, women will happily submit to their husbands and thrive. Under this view Adam’s sin wasn’t just that he followed Eve’s lead in the Garden, but that he allowed her to sin (or created the conditions required for her to sin) in the first place.

So good.

Outside of this small corner of the blogosphere, who will call out the injustice? Who will point out the absurdity of defining looking at pornography not just as sexual sin, but as domestic violence, as sexual abuse? Who will point out the absurdity of accusing a husband of abusing his wife from inside an Iranian prison seven thousand miles away? Who will point out the obvious violation of 1 Tim 5:19?

The only real option for a leader is to investigate, and find out if her claims have any merit. There should be no turning back now, and both should have to live with the consequences. That’s a mess that any leader ought to very carefully examine before he steps into it.

None of that mitigates the fear you spoke of. The fear among the complementation leaders is real. I’m only adding that there are also prudential reasons to cross the road…

It is in Canada. Other than feminists, I am not sure what sick-minded people would agree that a person groping another’s genitals is the same as real rape (as opposed to regret “rape”), but apparently there are some in Canada’s parliament.
Maybe the same sick people that decided you could charge a man with “raping” his own wife. Too bad that not even most Christians will take 1 Cor 7 seriously.
So glad I did not marry a typical Canadian woman. There were a handful of women I thought were very likely exceptions however.

@ColonelPopcorn
>Christ has set up marriage as the only moral bounds for romantic love, commitment, sex, and children

I encourage you to read what the Bible says about God’s idea of marriage. E.g. Do not deny sex, wife is not given any right to initiate divorce, wife and ex-wife entitled to 0% of the man’s possessions (she must stay with him if she wants continued food and clothing), etc.
“Marriage”, as the Bible defines it, is not on offer in US/Canada.
Therefore, advising people to get married is, unfortunately, just as foolish as advising people to go live on the surface of the sun. Legally, your suggestion is impossible.
Now, I can PRETEND to be married. That is possible. Up until princess decides otherwise.

>The best protection you have against frivorce, then, is to find a woman who is more committed to Christ than she is to you

Good luck. “Christian” women, who say they have been such for 20 years, in my experience are routinely ruled by their feelings. The Bible and the facts do not affect the argument, other than when such appear to support her feelings-based view.

I have seen good things from Eastern European women however. And bad things too of course.

Do we know for a fact that there’s even a modicum of truth the Tebow story? I don’t follow Tim Tebow (on facebook or otherwise), so I was wondering if there was any way of knowing if he was even dating that model lady.

“Another way of saying this is that radical Islam is brutal to everyone, but feminists imagine the brutality is aimed at women only (because they are only ever concerned about women) and what they see scares the shit out of them.”

“@bkilbor, let us not forget that God rebuked Elijiah for believing he was the only faithful person left. God had actually preserved 7,000 men in Israel who had not bowed their knee to Baal. There are more faithful people out there than perhaps we realize.”

This is true. It’s easy to become discouraged. Hearing this pastor’s sermon on Ephesians 5 encouraged me to believe there are pastors out there who have not bowed the knee to Jezebel.

I can’t remember who recommended Dr. Voddie Baucham on these boards about a month or so ago, but may God Bless You. I couldn’t believe I was hearing a Pastor actually preaching sound doctrine on Ephesians 5 and blew up the myth of “Mutual Submission”.

Regarding Tebow, this is not as rare as you may think. Teri Hatcher also said that her husband refused to have sex with her. I know of a couple divorces like that in real life too.

The reasons can be one or more of the following :

i) The man has already had sex with women of equal or higher looks, and is not aroused by her (even if she is Miss USA).
ii) He is impotent, possibly due to drugs of some sort..
iii) He watched a lot of porn, and can’t get excited by real women anymore. This sort of thing will increase as more technology arrives.
iv) The man has early stage kidney, prostate, or bladder cancer, all of which kill sex drive..

Contrary to the assumed misandry that it is always the man who wants it more than the woman (especially if the woman is good-looking), there are many examples of a man not wanting to bang his attractive gf or wife…

>Why not marry already? He thinks he is being a devout Christian, but extending courtship for years, and delaying marriage past 30 is not Christian at all

Neither is modern marriage, at all. Tebow the millionaire is supposed to marry a hottie without vetting her first? Why that sounds like a GREAT plan.

There is no escape for the modern Christian man. We all thought it was Chess and a long strategy would work but the game was “Go.” We were surrounded and before long there was no room to even move, or breathe. Checkmate.

The definitions feminists claim for patriarchy are lies, just as their definition of feminism is a lie. Feminists will tell you they are against sexism, yet their movement has as sexist a name as can be. When feminists tell you feminism is “about equality of the sexes” they’re lying. Feminists don’t want equality with men, feminists are loathe to give up their many female-only privileges.

I strongly recommend the book The Myth of Male Power by sociologist Dr. Warren Farrell. His breakthrough book explodes many of the lies feminists most commonly tell, lies that the Establishment Media (including, alas, the ‘pulpit’ media) has been telling for decades and is still telling. I also recommend Dr. Farrell’s book Why Men Are the Way They Are. It is very revealing.

I agree with Spike, to claim that there is such a thing as “good” feminism is an error. Don’t be fooled. Even most females know feminism is poison, thus the sly feminist line “I’m not a feminist, but…(insert pitch for feminist goal here)”. From its beginnings feminism has been about more privileges for females (especially the already most privileged of the loose females) and more burdens on men.

In closing, I remind everyone that if men run everything for the benefit of men’s interests (as the feminists’ false definitions of patriarchy claim) then why are men expected to do the least desirable, most dangerous jobs, why are men not females most likely to be separated from their children against their will by the State, why do men die sooner than females (even black females outlive even white men by a large margin), why are the bad, injurious behaviors of females less likely to be considered crimes than those committed mostly by men, why are men (and boys too!) expected to sacrifice their lives to save the lives of females, why is a female’s violence considered cute and excusable but a man’s violence is considered violent and inexcusable, why is men’s comfort sacrificed so females can be comfortable, why do men in powerful positions use their power to advance female class interests at the expense of other men; the list is nearly endless. Just look around you and you’ll begin to see example after example of female privilege and men’s powerlessness.

Neither is modern marriage, at all. Tebow the millionaire is supposed to marry a hottie without vetting her first? Why that sounds like a GREAT plan.

And how long should this “vetting” last? There is nothing more to vet from a potential spouse after 6-12 months of regular interactions. Zilch. Nada. Strictly speaking, 3 months are enough, if a man knows what he is looking for and is focused on finding it. All these interminable and endless dating is a feminist and churching invention, and does not lead to happy or long lasting marriages.

To vet a mate, the man wants to know:
1. Is she attractive enough to me? Do I enjoy her company? Can she be a good companion to me? Is her intelligence within striking distance of mine and am I satisfied with where she is?
2. Can she have babies–healthy babies, without undue medical interference?
3. Is she godly? Is she committed to the concept of marriage as clearly stated in Scripture?
4. Is she chaste? Does she exhibit self control? Does she have the ability to delay gratification? Does she know how to manage money and her time?
5. Is she kind? Does she care for others or put herself first?
6. Is she trainable in areas where she is deficient? Does she defer to me as the head of the relationship? Is she ready to adapt to me and to my life mission?
7. Is she clean? Does she know how to keep a home?
8. Etc

Many of these questions can be answered within the first few meeting. You simply need to re-examine her her over and over to see if her responses are consistent with your initial impressions.
You certainly don’t need many years to do this.

The definitions feminists claim for patriarchy are lies, just as their definition of feminism is a lie.
The whole feminism is 100% lie. There is absolutely no truth to anything feminism–its claims, its promises, its reasons for existence, its future. Feminism is a big bale of lies. That is exactly why its adherents strenuously try to keep the truth out of the discussion.
But it is only a matter of time. No matter how big the bale of lies might be, a single spark of truth can burn it all to ashes.

There is no escape for the modern Christian man. We all thought it was Chess and a long strategy would work but the game was “Go.” We were surrounded and before long there was no room to even move, or breathe. Checkmate

And how did the feminists achieve this? After all, they never took up arms.
The whole feminist movement is nothing but a giant shit test for western men. It is nothing more than a series of tantrums which western men continued to cave to, and they can say “enough” whenever they so wish, and I am glad they are doing so now.
Don’t blame the feminist bully for being a bully; blame the male victims for letting the bully get her way. If anything is true, it is this: you never stop a bully by letting them get their ways. They always come up with even greater demands.

“It’s undercounting” is the immediate conclusion leapt to by University of Ottawa criminology professor and domestic violence researcherHolly Johnson. “It’s not counting what is the true experience of students, because there is no campus in which this doesn’t exist.”

@Dalrock
Today I corrected the teaching of our pastor when he stated that Col. 3:18 was to be interpreted as “response-based” submission – ie., men have to be worthy before being submitted to. Showed him the terms he disputed in Strong’s, cross-referenced with 1 Pet. 3:1-7 and made the case that giving wives the only conditional command in Colossians 3 makes no sense. The man admittedly was not attempting to undermine headship, but the error he had learned (he’s the associate pastor of youth) is hopefully corrected.
I also sent him the fourth entry in “Reframing Christian Marriage” on your blog here. Hopefully, with this we can get some change and dispel the fear that our leaders are feeling.

If Tebow cared so much about Olivia Culpo, if he really loved her and wanted her, maybe he should have proposed marriage to her so they could legitimately have sex. And, if his faith and virginity are really that important to him, then he should have the courage of his convictions to let her go since it’s clear she doesn’t share his convictions and seek a woman who does share his convictions. He’s not likely to find such a woman among the Hollywood/glamor set he seems to occupy now.

I don’t know why he’s wasting his time dating these women who clearly aren’t wife material. With his level of status, he could easily find a traditional, virgin, Christian wife if he really wanted to. On one hand. I’m glad that he’s sticking to his convictions, but at the same time he doesn’t really seem to know what he wants. By 28 I’d think that someone like him could easily find a good wife.

On the Tebow story: The one story I saw suggested they’d been dating for 2 months. Of those two months, Tebow would be in the thick of College Football study & TV time. (He’s a highly paid, highly visible analyst for the SEC Network and ESPN and it actually takes a lot of work.) So she “broke up” with him after maybe 2-3 dates.

What she actually did was an attempt at a nuclear rejection because her vanity wasn’t enough to get him to break his convictions. So she’s a vain slut and my appreciation for Tebow increased. And Tebow will do fine, but, like all Men in this era, it’s a stupidly large amount of work to find a competent wife.

What she actually did was an attempt at a nuclear rejection because her vanity wasn’t enough to get him to break his convictions. So she’s a vain slut and my appreciation for Tebow increased. And Tebow will do fine, but, like all Men in this era, it’s a stupidly large amount of work to find a competent wife.

Perhaps she was just trying to up her good gal credentials by dating him and she got bored without her usual dose of youknowwhat. I don’t doubt Tebow has dodged a bullet here but at the same time, the man is hopelessly blue pill and it will take him time to sift through the damaged women to find one that will submit to him. However, he’s in a far better position to find such a girl than the rest of us.

I’m not necessarily sure that Tebow is in a better position. He’s an Apex Alpha and Women have been throwing themselves at him since he was 19 or so. It’s a very different position than the rest of us have, but I’m not sure he’s in a “far better” position. Just a radically different one.

Her: Tim Tebow’s gf dumped him because he won’t put out for her
Me: Now there’s a role reversal
Her: How sad
Me: Guess he didn’t look 4 a virgin. His error
Her: They’ve only been dating since OCTOBER.
Me: Hope he learned his lesson
Her: Wow omg you said that
Me: Reverse the genders and tell me your thoughts
Her: [silence]

Oh yes, I don’t disagree at all on your point about Tim marrying her if he really wanted her.
You make an excellent point…and this is perhaps what Dalrock also means when he says that she didn’t want to be a ‘celibate girlfriend’. Perhaps she wanted to be a (non!-) celibate wife?

However the message I get from reading the Daily Mail article about it is that it was less ‘marry me or else!’ and more ‘I am tired of the no-sex thing with this guy – NEXT!’

As others have pointed out, it was only TWO months!
She couldn’t cross her legs for TWO months??!!

You may remember (from my blog) that I am a big fan of Tim Tebow, not for his sporting endeavours but rather for his convictions.

If only I had a younger sister…(sigh)…
It wouldn’t matter that dear old Tim is not Catholic, lol. 🙂

9. Does she submit to the parental authority she has been placed under? How is her relationship with her dad? How is her relationship with her mom?
10. Does she submit to worldly authority she is under? Does she frequently get into trouble with her boss?

If she doesn’t submit to the parental authority she has placed under as commanded by God, but submits to worldly authority for a paycheck, that tells you all you need to know.

Teebow sounds a bit too much like a blue piller. He may have quite a bit of trouble in relationship issues no matter how honorable his stand on virginity is.

Sorry to miss a comment I got mentioned in here Dalrock. I am not sure about Shattered, but only Charisma News is really what I would consider Christian and they Charsima Mag, which I believe is related, got a lot into the “women’s rights” issues with Lee Grady (a former editor) writing about how women should be allowed into any ministry, completely ignoring the Scriptures. I fall in the general ministry area it covers, but got fairly disgusted with it more than a decade ago and have not read the magazine nor heard their news stuff that I can recall since then.

I accept your point that many are piling on, but I still think the sources noted are not likely to represent many Christians. That said, many blue pill Christian men would likely end up with the same conclusions because they have done much thought on the topic, to their own detriment.

Sorry to anyone for missed conversation closures. I didn’t feel like devoting the time arguing over the holidays. My oldest son and I are finally developing some kind of a relationship and that was more worth the focus than any arguing about things here was.

Some sources are now reporting that Tebow and that model were never dating at all. It’s all still just hearsay at this point, since the actual parties being reported on haven’t made any public statements to my knowledge, but it’s nice to see that some in the media are at least mentioning that possibility.

TMZ Sport had a pretty flat set of denials from a lot of contacts around them. When TMZ is saying “nothing there”, you know it’s a pretty dead issue. Someone in the Woman’s camp was trying to raise her profile. She’s a “former” Miss Universe now. She’s on a clock.

payne325 @ 10:25 am:
“Dalrock, I agree with your analysis of this situation, but wasn’t the accusation that the pastor did these things before be went to Iran?”

Yes, in fact, the accusation is that he was abusing her before she even decided to marry him. Hmm…

…

BradA @ December 1, 2015 at 11:53 pm:
“Tebow sounds a bit too much like a blue piller.”

He sounds to me like a situational Alpha, being sexy only because he does professional sports in a high-visibility position. That would explain his apparent clumsiness in relationships of any length. Attracting female attention is one thing, containing it is another.

Is he still playing football? I thought he didn’t quite make it in the NFL. Nice guy, but it seemed he wasn’t properly geared to the pro game. I have noticed that in more than one Heisman Trophy winner IIRC.

“If Tebow cared so much about Olivia Culpo, if he really loved her and wanted her, maybe he should have proposed marriage to her so they could legitimately have sex. ”

It’d still be at least a year. Engagement, publicity, engagement party, publicity, wedding planning, publicity,these things take time. Finally the wedding, and then of course shortly after, the divorce.

Has anyone caught this series “Nashville”. There was a sub-plot of a young, Tebow looking, virgin Christian football star who falls in love with one of the main characters, a young up and coming country starlet in competition with an older, struggling to stay relevant “queen of country music” type. So despite her drug addict mom, horrible reputation in the music industry, and multiple ex sex partners, this guy proposes marriage to her 2 months in! His own mother disapproves and fights it all the way which just makes the country music starlet that much more determined to marry him to spite her. I’m sure you all can guess what happened next.